The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.

To order the Defendants to be put on probation.

Punishment of the crime

On October 6, 2014, around 02:16, at the entrance of a public toilet located in the Yongsan Park, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, at around 621, the Defendants attempted to destroy the said public toilet by putting the scopic road on the wall of a toilet by collecting the stop of the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic on the wall of the toilet. However, the Defendants failed to commit the crime by extinguishing the scopic scopic

As a result, Defendants conspired to fire parks and greenbelts and public toilets for management in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, which are public buildings, but did not bring about such intent, but failed to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The criminal place and the report on the occurrence of a crime;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the suspect examination protocol to the accused who has reported an investigation (on the spot, and search and investigation);

1. Relevant Articles 174, 165, and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the Defendants’ selection of punishment: Articles 174, 165, and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants who attempted to reduce: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The Defendants to be suspended from sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for nine months; and

1. The Defendants of suspended sentence: Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for sentencing”),

1. Defendants on probation: The Defendants’ defense counsel on the assertion of the defense counsel under Article 59-2 of the Criminal Act alleged that the Defendants had no intention to commit a fire, and that the Defendants had a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol, but according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendants had an incomplete intention to commit a fire, and the things are located.